NFL Network Blows Their Countdown Regarding Peyton Manning & Tom Brady

If you are a fan of the NFL Network, you have likely watched a number of their “Top-10” countdowns. After watching their list of the “Top-10 Single Season Performances”, the NFL Network has again managed to put as little effort into the production of their countdowns, as their “Expert-Analysts” often do in preparation for their program, “Total Access.”

I will get down to the point.

Their original countdown of the top-10 single season performances ended with Peyton Manning’s 2004 season taking the top spot.

Tom Brady’s 2007 season has since replaced that top spot if you’ve watched their updated version which aired earlier tonight.

While I respectfully disagree with their conclusion, that is not the topic of discussion in this article as I could understand why some would feel Brady’s 2007 season to be the better of the two.

The real issue is, when Tom Brady’s 2007 season replaced Peyton Manning’s 2004 season, NFL Network decided to omit Manning’s season all together.

Essentially, it was ranked number one before Tom Brady had his MVP season in 2007. They felt that Brady’s season was more impressive, thus is secured the number one spot.

That’s fine.

But logically speaking, if Peyton Manning’s 2004 season was more impressive than numbers 10 through two on their list before the inclusion of Brady’s 2007 season, common sense would tell you that it would then become the second greatest single season performance according to their countdown.

Instead, the NFL Network removed it all together.

To make matters worse, you would have to watch their clip detailing Tom Brady’s 2007 season.

They took video clips spoken by Adam Schefter, Brian Baldinger, and Kurt Warner, and applied the exact same sound-bites to make it seem as if they were talking about Brady’s 2007 season.

Since both quarterback’s seasons were quite similar, the sound-bites appear to have match up pretty well. The problem is, it isn’t possible given that the sound-bites were recorded before the 2007 season even began.

While this might not appear to be an issue to some people, it displays a complete and utter lack of effort on the NFL Network’s part.

All they would have had to have done is put Brady’s 2007 season in place of Manning’s 2004 season, place Manning’s season at the number two spot on their countdown and knock everyone else down one spot in light of what Tom Brady did in 2007.

I can speculate as to why they did what they did and I feel that it’s a pretty logical assumption.

They wanted to make their countdown appear more diverse and given the similar performance between Manning in 2004 and Brady in 2007, they erased one of the two and kept the original entries as to not make a list appear to repetitive.

At the same time, they saved themselves the trouble of creating new material by simply taking clips from their original program and inserting them to make reference to a completely different player during a completely different season.

That might be a logical way to save a little bit of production time, but not if you care about how the quality of your product appears to the public.

While many people might either not be aware or might not care, what the NFL Network has done is displayed a very poor attempt to make their countdowns credible.

I understand that many people could argue as to who belongs where on their lists and that’s perfectly understandable seeing as sports is as subjective as anything else you’ll find in life, but to have once established the placement of one player’s season and to then remove it entirely simply defies logic.

The NFL Network is great in that it provides the fans with continuous coverage of the NFL, and a plethora of programming for their fans to get their daily fix. I simply would expect a lot more from the league’s official network because if the NFL wants to represent itself as a quality brand, their official television network should reflect the same standard.

Broadway No: Why an Average Joe Namath Should Be Removed From Hall of Fame

Joe Namath has long been known as one of the most popular figures in the history of the National Football League. Be it his eccentric nature, fur coats, pantyhose, the first ever 4,000-yard passing season, or his guaranteed victory in Super Bowl III, there are a great many memories that come to mind when you think of “Broadway Joe.”

And as we all know, Joe Namath was long ago inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

But he shouldn’t have been.

Before I go any further, I want the readers to first know that I do not dislike Joe Namath in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact, he is actually one of my favorite quarterbacks to have ever played the game.

I respect Namath, but not so much for his body of work on the field.

What Namath did for the sport of professional football is put it on the map, and then bring it into the limelight in a way that was never seen before.

Suddenly female fans were as attracted to the sport of football as they were to Namath himself.

He was a “larger than life” character who helped give the sport of professional football the same swagger he carried every Sunday.

But when it came down to what he actually did on the field on those great many Sundays, you have to sit back and ask yourself whether or not his performance was of a Hall of Fame caliber.

I do not raise this question out of any ill-will towards Joe Namath.

As I stated before, I happen to like the guy but at the same time that doesn’t mean that I can turn a blind eye to the reality of his performance on the field.

When it comes to the Hall of Fame, everyone has their own reservations as to who they feel belongs in and who doesn’t.

The issue is that there is no specific criteria which means that no amount of wins, yards, or touchdowns can guarantee anyone a spot.

The lone aspect that I feel most (if not all) people agree upon is the necessity for a Hall of Fame player to have both played at a high level and to have done so for an extended period of time.

So the next logical step would be to establish whether Namath did in-fact play at a very high level, then (if he did) determine how long he was able to do so.

Let’s now take a look at the career production of Joe Namath to get a basis for discussion.

 

Joe Namath (1965-1977)

1,886 of 3,762 (50.1 percent) for 27,663 yards, 173 touchdowns, and 220 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 65.5

*62-63-4 record as a starting quarterback.

*Threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 13 of his 15 seasons.

 

After viewing his performance over the course of his career, two things jumped out at me.

First of all, he actually had a losing record as a starting quarterback.

That, of course, is as much of a reflection of his entire team as it was of Namath himself so you have to ask yourself “what was Namath’s contributions to his team’s chances of winning during that period of time?”

That is why I pointed out the touchdown to interception ratio.

While it is true that the 1960s and 1970s were a very different era from today, it was not acceptable for a quarterback to throw more interceptions than touchdowns on that regular a basis.

It was known to happen more frequently with starting quarterbacks back then in comparison to today but to have done so in 13 of his 15 seasons speaks volumes.

But, of course, to better understand Namath’s career, you have to look at two chapters.

There was Joe Namath competing against AFL teams and Joe Namath playing in the merged NFL.

Some are of the belief that the AFL was inferior (yet still a financial threat), and there are others who feel that both leagues were equal.

The NFL has certainly done as much as they could to legitimize the AFL on account of the merger and  have even gone as far as to count AFL statistics as equally as NFL statistics.

So if you are of the belief that the league’s were of equal caliber (meaning that Namath was at no statistical advantage for having played five years in the AFL) than it would be logical to assume that his performance would not change after the merger.

But did it?

Joe Namath (1965-1969 in the AFL era)

1,026 of 2,043 (50.2 percent) for 15,487 yards, 97 touchdowns, and 104 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 70.1

*37-23-4 record as a starting quarterback.

*Threw more interceptions than touchdowns in three out of five seasons.

 

Joe Namath (1970-1977 after the NFL/AFL merger)

860 of 1,719 (50.0 percent) for 12,176 yards, 76 touchdowns, and 116 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 59.9 

*25-40 record as a starting quarterback.

*Threw more interceptions than touchdowns in eight out of eight seasons.

While his production during his days in the AFL was short of spectacular, his performance after the merger was not only light-years away from great, it was well below average.

Many would argue that Namath was the victim of injuries during the latter half of his career but his seasons after the merger comprise over 60-percent of his entire career.

If his performance in the AFL wasn’t that great to begin with, how exactly is it that when you look at the entire body of work that is his 13-year NFL career, the voters ended up with a player whom they felt to be Hall of Fame worthy?

The obvious answer is due to the contributions I reflected upon earlier in the article.

That combined of course with his victory in Super Bowl III over the Baltimore Colts.

A victory for which Namath was bold enough to guarantee in advance.

The Jets did win over the heavily-favored Baltimore Colts, but how “great” was Namath’s performance during what was without question, the highlight of his career?

 

Joe Namath (Super Bowl III)

17 of 28 (60.7 percent) for 206 yards, zero touchdowns, and zero interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 83.3

 

So while Namath did manage to not lose the game against a very tough opponent, was his performance really that “great?”

Or perhaps was the real MVP running-back Matt Snell who ran for 121-yards and one touchdown on 30 carries and also caught four passes for 40-yards?

It appears to me that the man who made the “guarantee” and played just well enough to win received the lion’s share of the glory.

If it was Matt Snell who guaranteed victory before the game and performed as well as he did, do you really think Joe Namath would have been named the game’s MVP?

The point is that it shouldn’t make a difference because both Namath and Snell played the way they played on the field.

In any event, I’m sure that a number of readers might think that I’m being a bit hard on Namath and might feel that I’m simply not understanding that it was much more difficult to throw during Namath’s era than it is these days.

So let’s be fair.

Enter two words, Len Dawson.

If you are a devout NFL fan, you might have heard his name before.

But how many people would put Len Dawson in the same company as Joe Namath?

If it really was just the era that Namath was playing in that affected his performance to the extent illustrated, certainly the Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame quarterback would have been the same victim of circumstance, right?

Len Dawson played from 1957 to 1975 but didn’t see regular action until he became the starting quarterback of the Dallas Texans (soon to become the Kansas City Chiefs) in 1962 and continued to remain active until 1975.

So what we have is two Hall of Fame quarterbacks who played during the exact same era for the exact same leagues.

And what do we have?

Len Dawson (1957-1975)

2,136 of 3,741 (57.1 percent) for 28,711 yards, 239 touchdowns, and 183 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 82.6

*94-57-8 record as a starting quarterback.

 

So how does his career look in comparison to Namath’s?

Namath actually attempted 21 more passes (3,762 to Dawson’s 3,741) but Dawson had a seven-point higher completion percentage, 1,048 more passing yards, 66 more touchdown passes, 37 fewer interceptions, and a quarterback rating 17.1 points higher than Namath’s.

Len Dawson also won 32 more games, and lost six fewer than Joe Namath.

So what we have is a quarterback far more accurate, moved his team up and down the field more, put many more points on the board, and turned the ball over far less often.

Now I want you to think about this for a moment.

The career quarterback rating differential between Namath and Dawson (82.6 to 65.5) is equal to the amount of difference between the career quarterback ratings of Tom Brady and Stan Humpheries (92.9 to 75.8).

But how many people would think that Humpheries is as close to Brady as they feel Namath is to Dawson?

Nobody would and as well they shouldn’t because they’re not even close.

While I’m sure that everyone’s opinions will differ, I would imagine that most people wouldn’t have thought there to be such a great differential between Namath and Dawson, right?

And how many people would have thought of Dawson to be that much better?

This brings forth an interesting scenario.

Either Joe Namath is a Hall of Fame caliber quarterback who played at a Hall of Fame level but Len Dawson just so happened to be light-years ahead of him.

or…

Len Dawson is a good example of a Hall of Fame quarterback while Joe Namath, quite simply, is not.

Which one of the two appears to be more logical?

So now we come full circle to the title of my article.

“Joe Namath Should Be Removed From the Hall of Fame to Restore Order.”

Now, why would I say something like that?

It certainly isn’t because I don’t like Joe Namath.

It’s not because his Jets defeated my Colts 20-years before I was born.

It is because of the precedent that his induction has established.

There are a number of good quarterbacks whom many feel have been snubbed from their induction into the Hall of Fame.

Some might be worthy, others might not, but one thing that many of them have in common is the comparison to Joe Namath.

You could take a guy like Ken Stabler (who I do not feel belongs in the Hall of Fame) and substantiate a solid argument for his career being superior to Namath’s, and you’d be right.

This is but one example of many but the issue is that if Joe Namath is worthy of being in the Hall of Fame, so are a great many other quarterbacks.

So long as he remains in the Hall of Fame (which he always will), there will always be people upset that other quarterbacks who played at a higher level for longer periods of time are left out, while Namath gets to don his yellow-jacket every August.

I realize that they cannot “remove” someone from the Hall of Fame and with all due fairness, it would be terrible thing to do to a person from an emotional standpoint.

But if you could imagine for a moment, Namath having to travel to Canton, OH to return his yellow-jacket and have his bust removed, you would all imagine that to be a great injustice, right?

While I agree that it would be a horrible thing to do to any player who had worked so hard to be a part of professional football, I think that it is just as bad for each and every year, quarterbacks who played better than Namath to not get inducted and then be forced to watch Namath enjoying himself in the company of other Hall of Famers.

Removing Namath would not be for the purpose of any ill-will towards him personally, it would be for the great many quarterbacks who played better than him but will never receive the same honor.

It would also help correct the precedent that has been established in the wake of his induction.

It’s not that Joe Namath didn’t play hard, he did.

It’s not that he wasn’t physically gifted; he had perhaps the greatest arm I’ve ever seen.

It’s not that Joe Namath isn’t a likable guy, he is.

It’s just a matter of Joe Namath the quarterback on the field not being nearly as good as the image we have all created of him.

You shouldn’t have players outside the Hall of Fame who played better than ones inside of it and that is an issue that will always exist so long as Joe Namath is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Ken Stabler Does Not Belong in the Hall of Fame: Not Even Close

As I’m watching the NFL Network’s countdown of the top 10 players not inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, I couldn’t help but passionately disagree with the notion that Ken Stabler had been snubbed from induction into the Hall of Fame.

While I realize that many people possess different criteria, I believe that we would all agree that a Hall of Famer should have played at a very high level for an extended period of time.

Did Ken Stabler do that?

You tell me after looking at his career production.

Ken Stabler (1970-1984): 2,270 of 3,793 for 27,938 yards, 194 touchdowns, 222 interceptions, 75.3 QB Rating.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that he threw more interceptions than touchdowns.

For a player to be more consistent in turning the ball over than putting points on the board is not a sign of greatness.

We are talking about a different era but at the same time, we’re not talking about the 1930’s either. Throwing more interceptions than touchdowns was not the mark of a good (let alone great) season in the 1970’s or 1980’s.

But beyond the career totals, I think that it is important to look at individual seasons to get a gage as to how often Stabler actually performed at a high level.

His production can be found right here…

http://www.nfl.com/players/kenstabler/profile?id=STA013616

If you look at his career, 1973, 1974, 1976, and 1979 appear to be his only above-average seasons.

1974 and 1976 appear to me to be his only arguably “great” seasons.

I would argue that Ken Stabler played at a Hall of Fame level in two of his 15 seasons in the National Football League.

That, to me, is not a Hall of Fame body of work. Not even close.

Many people might disagree, and would argue that the numbers aren’t telling the entire story.

If that’s the case, I would like for someone to detail how Ken Stabler’s performance during any season (excluding 1974 & 1976) was not only exceptional, but performance of a Hall of Fame caliber.  

The reason why many people feel that Ken Stabler belongs in the Hall of Fame is because the Oakland Raiders were one of the most memorable franchises during the 1970’s and Stabler himself was their quarterback.

He compiled a 96-49-1 record as a starter in the NFL so people associate the success of the Oakland Raiders’ franchise with the man who played the quarterback position.

It’s an understandable train of thought, but is nevertheless not an accurate reflection of the individual contributions of Ken Stabler himself.

So has Ken Stabler been snubbed from an induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

In my view, not even close.

10 Reasons Not to Like Peyton Manning Exposes an Abundance of Tomfoolery

It is no secret that Indianapolis Colts’ quarterback Peyton Manning isn’t quite the same poster-boy for popularity as he happens to be for marketability.

For one reason or another, Peyton Manning has become the proverbial punching-bag for the masses to attempt to swing their feckless fists at in the attempt to gain a moment of temporary satisfaction.

In any event, the New York Times recently published an article written by KC Joyner in an attempt to uncover the true motives behind this phenomenon.

While there is no prerequisite to remain impartial while writing an article about a sports figure (or anyone else for that matter), there is a difference between taking a shot at someone in response to behavior that one might deem to be questionable, and taking pot-shots without motivation simply for the satisfaction of pouncing on an easy target.

I need not defend Peyton Manning as his performance both on and off the field does the talking for him.

But while articles such as the aforementioned deal with petty issues for which Peyton himself would likely care little about, there is nothing to prevent me from exposing the reality of such instances by taking a firm stand in opposition of the sports-writing bullies of the world.

But before those who can recall the plethora of anti-Brady articles that I have written over the course of my B/R tenure speak out for the hypocrisy they might feel to be taking place in this very article, understand of course that there is a great deal of difference between questioning the moral conduct regarding the intake of questionably obtained competitive information while taking the stance that one such particular football-god might rank below some others, and creating a list of of petty reasons not to like another.

What I can do is provide for you, the list of ten reasons why KC Joyner feels that the Peyton Manning Fan-Club has “membership issues” and analyze the validity of the reasons provided.

 

1. “His pre-snap histrionics. All that gesturing and leg-lifting and waving and dummy audibles drive fans up a wall. I know Manning thinks this gives him an edge, but compare his pre-snap moves with Brett Favre’s. Before just about every snap, Favre barks the same signal: “Blue 58…Blue 58…Green 19…Green 19, set, hut!” I swear that I have heard Favre do this so many times I can hear it in my sleep, yet it isn’t halfway as annoying as Manning. And since Favre has been just as successful as Manning over the years, one has to wonder about the edge this really gives to Manning.”

Now let me analyze this for a moment. “Since Favre has been just as successful as Manning over the years”, really now?

I suppose in Joyner’s estimation, Favre’s career quarterback rating of 85.4 is mathematically equivalent to Manning’s 94.7.

Manning’s +9.3 points of quarterback rating accounts for an greater amount of distance between him and Favre than Favre (85.4) is from Jay Fiedler (77.1), but I suppose that is irrelevant.

Let’s not make any mention that Manning has a higher completion percentage, averages more yards per-game, more touchdown passes per-game, and fewer interceptions per-game.

This simply appears to be an instance where the author recognizes that both Manning and Favre have been productive, therefore is under the impression that their performance must be identical.

“One has to wonder about the edge this really gives Manning”.

How about being the most productive player in NFL history and possessing the highest quarterback rating for any quarterback to have played over a decade’s worth of games.

I would argue that Manning’s pre-snap antics frustrate anyone who isn’t a Colts fan because it makes them sick to see this guy who is performing gestures they don’t understand, put more points up on the board than their beloved heroes.

 

2. “His history of on the field pouting when things don’t go well. He did this in the playoff losses to New England and also had more than a couple of regular-season occurrences of this. Fans don’t like to see any player act this way, but they are especially unforgiving about quarterbacks.”

I am curious to find out what the author’s definition of “pouting” is.

If he is referring to times when Manning has thrown his hands up in the air and looked so emotional that he could explode, than yes we are talking about the same Peyton Manning.

But this is a reason not to like someone?

We see players who spit in the mouths of others, throw up gang-signs in celebration and brush past other players while refusing to even shake hands, but Manning throwing his hands up in the air and getting red in the face is the real issue?

I don’t think so.

True, people might say negative things about such behavior but I don’t think that is the real motivation for their distaste of Manning.

Again, people love to point out flaws in people who appear to be reasonably flawless.

In Manning’s case, people who dislike the fact that he produces more both on and off the field are going to love the opportunity to pounce on instances where they feel they can have a quick laugh at his expense.

 

3. “Throwing his teammates under the bus after a loss. Manning may have been trying to be very careful and fair about distributing blame after some of the big losses over the years, but again, it doesn’t come across well to fans.”

I love how people take one instance that accounted for about ten-seconds of Manning’s 11-year career, and paint a picture of him being a poor teammate.

Obviously this was a reference to Manning remarks following the 2005 AFC Divisional playoff defeat to the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Manning said that “I’m trying to be a good teammate here, let’s just say there were some issues with protection” after being sacked five times and having even less time per-snap to get the ball off than Tom Brady had in Super Bowl XLII (I suggest looking back at the film).

Do we make reference to Manning being heckled by reporters about the issue for minutes prior to his remarks?

Of course not and why would we?

The sound-bites always sound better.

But have we ever heard a single player say that Peyton Manning was a bad teammate?

Have we ever heard a single player say that they felt as though Manning had “thrown them under the bus”?

I assure you with as much as people like to make an issue of his remarks, they would be equally excited to expose a direct opinion from one of his teammates that reflected the same implication.

Too bad the guys Manning has played with have not shared that point of view (and take it from me, I’ve interviewed two of them directly).

4. “His P.R. approach to everything. Manning has the same issue that some politicians have. They become so well-polished with their answers that they seem somewhat fake or phony. Football fans want to identify with their quarterback as the guy next door, a guy they could go out and have a beer with, and Manning might not strike a lot of fans as that kind of guy.”

Well I suppose the fact that Manning graduated in three years from the University of Tennessee with honors and a degree in communications has led people to believe that he is too sincere to be sincere.

And since people could not picture hanging out with Manning in an Indianapolis bar and sharing an alcoholic beverage, he must be some sort of social deviant.

If Manning chooses to spend more of his time studying film and less of his time indulging in the pleasures that intoxicating substances have to offer, I would say those would be the qualities of a finer quarterback.

I could understand wanting to relate to a guy and have a good old time but if a man wants to dedicate more time to honing his craft, that’s the guy I would rather have on my football team.

 

5. “His commercial endorsements. Manning’s ubiquitous endorsement presence can be irritating. It can make him come across as being self-absorbed and mercenary, no matter how cute the commercials themselves are.”

This reason might have some validity to it, but let’s analyze this for a moment.

Peyton Manning gets paid millions of dollars (much of which he gives back to charity mind you) to promote products that end up making the people who hired him even more millions of dollars and this is a bad thing?

For every football fan who sits on the sofa every Sunday and criticizes Manning for being in one too many commercials, how many of them would decline millions of dollars if they could earn the same position Manning has?

 

6. “His football royalty lineage. Football fans aren’t the type of people who easily connect with someone from a privileged background. That’s where Manning came from, at least from a football perspective. Fans are much more likely to connect with a quarterback who had to fight odds and overcome being a second stringer. Someone like, say, Tom Brady for instance.”

So I suppose that Manning’s biological make-up is his fault.

In all actuality though, why should a person’s ability to relate to a player’s upbringing dictate how they feel about the person overall?

Meaning, obviously most people can connect with the “common man” but if someone from a “privileged background” was raised with the right morals and in-turn, has set a good example and become one of the best role-models a child could have, why are we less inclined to like that person?

Seems like a petty reason to dislike a person as far as I’m concerned because there is a difference between not connecting to someone due to the in-ability to relate to them, and disliking them.

 

7. “His intellectual style. I make my living by reviewing stats and other metrics, so I’m all for this approach, but even I don’t want to make the game quite as intellectual as Manning seems to want to at times.”

So because Manning chooses to further investigate the various aspects of the game of football in greater depth, we should not like this person?

Think of Brett Favre for a moment (who I do like as a matter of fact) and watch his “Favre 4ever” DVD as he explains that for years into his NFL career, he didn’t know what a “nickel” coverage was.

Do you not think that such failure to comprehend the game might have translated into a tendency for him to make mistakes on the field?

And wouldn’t Manning’s passion for being becoming further knowledgeable play a role in his success?

I could understand why his football-vocabulary might confuse people, but it doesn’t strike me as something to hold against him.

 

8. “His lack of physicality. Manning has already started more consecutive games than just about anyone in NFL history and there is a good chance he will end up breaking Favre’s quarterback record in this category. Despite this, he still isn’t seen as a tough guy. This is partly because he has an offensive system that is designed to protect him. He rarely takes any hits due to this, though he is also helped by his ability to get rid of the ball quickly. Not taking hits does help him survive physically but it doesn’t do much for his reputation.”

People must have forgotten when in 2001, Manning had his Jaw cracked about half-way through after taking a helmet collision to the face.

And how much time did this player who “isn’t seen as a tough guy” miss?

One snap.

As he continued to play every single game for the rest of the season with a special facemask created to prevent further damage.

Coming back from multiple knee-operations while playing hurt to win the league MVP award is worth noting, but I suppose it wouldn’t change many people’s minds.

 

9. “He plays indoors. When you bring up a mental image of Favre, what do you see? A cold Sunday at Lambeau field when he is having a shouting match with Warren Sapp. When you bring up a mental image of Manning, what do you see? A domed stadium and an unsoiled uniform.”

It must have been part of Manning’s scheme to get drafted to a team that played in a dome.

That would explain why he returned to Tennessee for a senior season when he was projected to go number one overall to the Jets in 1997.

He didn’t want to play in the cold so he risked his chances by playing another season of college football that didn’t help improve his draft-position just so he could play in the comfy confines of the RCA Dome.

Worthy of further mention is that Lucas Oil Field isn’t exactly a dome.

It has windows in multiple areas that open to let the air in. Granted it’s a lot better than playing in Lambeau field in the middle of December, but the RCA Dome it is not.

 

10. “His clean off-field image. One would think this would be a big plus, but Manning in some ways is seen as almost too much of a goody-two-shoes. He’s kind of like the Roger Staubach of today. Staubach tried to fight that image, once telling an “NFL Today” interviewer that he liked sex as much as Joe Namath did, but he had it with one woman.”

So since Manning does not get into legal troubles of share his romantic life with the world, he must be too well-behaved to be liked? As a matter of fact, people are going to dislike him more for behaving better?

 

When it’s all said and done, I cannot say that the reasons KC Joyner provided are inaccurate.

I think that there is some validity to his list of reasons why people tend not to like Manning, I just think that the real motive behind why they feel that way was not explained in further depth.

The issue is, I wouldn’t usually view an article such as this to be of an attacking nature.

If one were to simply try to generate a list of reasonable explanations for why a certain player is facing various public-affection issues, it would be understandable.

But there is a difference between trying to provide an answer to a reasonable question, and turning your list of reasons into a comical performance that pokes fun at someone who didn’t initiate any kind of confrontation.

Of course my rebuttal was plagued hyperbole, but the points I made are no less valid than the explanations provided in the first place.

 

Message to the Indianapolis Colts Community:

Bleacher Report is working with the Indianapolis Colts organization in an effort to provide the Colts-Nation with more exclusive content. Some of our writers will be publishing their work on www.mycolts.net as well as Bleacher Report in an effort to further expand our reach while also establishing a repoire with the Indianapolis Colts organization. Please help spread the word and allow our voice to be heard as we continue to share our writing with other sports fans world-wide.

Happy Birthday to a Very Special Person

I have found that in life, often times the most meaningful moments tend to occur during the most inopportune times.

While it might be easy to remember certain significant events in one’s life and value them for great memories that they have become, there are also those special moments that occur on impulse that can carry the same amount of value.

I have been a passionate sports fan for the greater portion of my life. I have also been blessed enough to have great people on my life who have shared my passion: My father, my mother, my step-father, my brothers, my fiancé, and the list goes on and on.

All of the aforementioned people have shared, to one degree or another, my passion for sports and I have been all the more fortunate to be the beneficiary of such fantastic interaction.

So over the course of my life, it would become almost a prerequisite for a family member and myself to exchange views about that particular week’s football game or wrestling contest. Without much thought, concern, or dedication, such conversations would become a staple of the Michael-family BBQ’s.

But with as much as I cherish and value the times in which I have had the opportunity to share my passion for sports with others who have shared my interest, there have also been times when certain people have gone out of their way to take an interest in my passions for no other reason than the kindness they possess in their hearts.

Enter my future mother-in-law to be.

I do not feel as if the NFL has even been an essential part of her life. As a matter of fact, I believe her greatest passion would likely reside in perhaps her greatest work of all: Raising two daughters. one of whom I have been blessed enough to have the opportunity to spend the rest of my life with.

So for a woman who has had passions that extend far beyond the reach of sports admiration, you wouldn’t expect her to have an overwhelming amount of interest in who won the football game during any given week.

But this woman is the kind of person who would reach outside of her personal realm of interest to discuss things less important, albeit, often more exciting to me, with someone whom she knows has a passion for it.

You see, it’s easy to take the time to talk about football when it’s something that you already love yourself. It’s something else to dedicate a portion of your day to reach outside your personal field of interest for someone else.

Such people might not think much of doing so, but often times they might be unaware of the positive impact their actions can have.

I cannot tell you how many days have gone by where I might have been under an inordinate amount of stress for any given reason.

My escape of course, is to vent out all of the random sports-related statistics, theories, and perspectives I have, often times upon unsuspecting victims whose first topic of discussion wouldn’t likely consist of how many touchdown passes Peyton Manning has thrown.

Yet time and time again, this special person would take her time to listen to every random, insignificant, and often times senseless sports-related comment, just to enable me the opportunity to share my passion.

Never once have I been made to feel as if I had been going a little overboard, which I do, and never had I ever been told that she wasn’t interested even though I’m fairly certain that there were topics of discussion that she might have a greater interest in.

There have been times when she would be excited to point out a Peyton Manning article that might have caught her eye on Yahoo. Little things that can mean so much when you see someone take an interest in something for you.

I’ll never forget the time when Monday Night Raw was coming to town and I would have never been able to afford good tickets at the time.

This special person, as well as another close friend of mine, were the first to volunteer to make sure that my fiancé and I got to not only got to go to the event, but got to be close enough to hit Batista with a soda bottle if we so chose (an opportunity that we unfortunately failed to take advantage of).

In any event, I would like to personally thank this special person for all of her sports-related and non-sports-related contributions to my life as well as others whom I care about a great deal.

My friend Rich would know exactly who I’m talking about.

So on this special day when there are more important things going on than sports, I would like to personally wish this special person the happiest of birthdays.

Elway, Bradshaw, & Aikman Better Than Peyton Manning? Shame on You NFL Network

As I was watching NFL Network today, I became quite disturbed with their list of the Top 10 quarterbacks to have ever been drafted No.1 overall.

It’s not so much that I personally place any value on their lists because I don’t. Rather, the greater issue is that the lack of research and credible criteria brings fourth more and more lists that continue to shape the minds of millions of NFL fans world—wide.

In this particular instance, the NFL Network ranked John Elway No.1, Terry Bradshaw No.2, Troy Aikman No.3, and Peyton Manning No.4.

Needless to say, I disagree with NFL Network’s conclusion that Elway and especially Bradshaw and Aikman had been better quarterbacks than Peyton Manning has been thus far.

So what I’m going to do is breakdown the above mentioned quarterbacks and compare their top three to the No.4 guy on their list.

First we have the No.3 quarterback on the list, Troy Aikman.

Not much was said of Troy beyond when Jamie Dukes referred to Aikman as “The most accurate quarterback I’ve ever seen”.

Interesting as you’d think he might have been watching guys like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, both of whom have higher career completion percentages (64.4 for Manning & 63.0 for Brady) compared to Aikman’s 61.5 career completion percentage.

That is not to say that Aikman wasn’t an accurate quarterback by any means.

It just appears as though that one singular aspect of his game has had a greater emphasis placed upon it due to the fact that he never produced to any great degree in any other particular areas as an individual player.

Then we have Terry Bradshaw who ranked second on NFL Network’s list.

They obviously made reference to Bradshaw’s four Super Bowl victories.

Funny how there wasn’t much more to say about him. That’s likely due to the fact that Terry Bradshaw rarely performed at an elite level despite the success his team had.

That’s really the key word here, team.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Terry Bradshaw the guy playing with a Hall of Fame running back, a Hall of Fame center, Two (albeit possibly one undeserving) Hall of Fame receivers, and possible the greatest defensive unit in NFL History?

If one were to imply that Peyton Manning was afforded an equal opportunity to win four Super Bowls in terms of the support of his team as a whole (remember now, that accounts for Offense, Defense, & Special Teams) then I would love to hear a detailed explanation.

Then there was one No.1 on the list and that man was John Elway.

He is perhaps the only quarterback in which you could substantiate a valid claim for.

It’s not so much that I have anything against John Elway (I don’t) but he has simply not accomplished as much as Peyton Manning has and he has had longer to build up his resume.

The best argument that one could provide is that he carried a team that wasn’t exactly elite to five Super Bowls.

The issue with that theory is, the 1997 and 1998 Denver Broncos were elite.

The 1986 squad that he led to the Super Bowl was anything but however, the 1987 team possessed a seventh ranked defense and the 1989 squad had the No.1 defense in the entire league.

So did Elway make a lot out of teams that weren’t as great as Aikman’s Cowboys or Bradshaw’s Steelers?

Absolutely, but the quality of support he had to work with is often made out to be far worse than it really was which in turn, has made Elway appear that much more heroic.

Shouldn’t I at least mention Pro Bowl selections?

The popular response would be no, because people have a tenancy to point out the times when players are selected undeservedly over better players (think of Brett Favre in 2008) and they use that argument as the foundation for dis—crediting the event as a whole.

The reality of matter however is that the selection system (while having it’s flaws to be sure) succeeds far more often than it fails.

Below is a list of how many Pro Bowls all of the four quarterbacks were selected to.

 

Peyton Manning: Nine

John Elway: Nine

Troy Aikman: Six

Terry Bradshaw: Three

 

Now, if one is to argue the validity and credibility of the above posted selections, all they must do is the following.

Explain which of Peyton Manning’s nine Pro Bowl seasons were years where he did not deserve to be selected and explain who deserved the spot Manning took and why he deserved it more than Manning.

Additionally, explain which years quarterbacks like Aikman and Bradshaw deserved to go but didn’t. 

Tell us who actually earned the spot in those years and why Aikman or Bradshaw deserved the spots instead of them.

Again, that is not to say that you have to make the Pro Bowl to have had a good season.

Rather, being selected simply validates that you were one of the select few who performed at a higher level than your contemporaries. 

But as I know this argument could go on and on, I’m simply going to provide all of you with what each of the four quarterbacks produced on the field during their respective careers.

 

Peyton Manning in 176 games:

3,839 of 5,960 (64.4 percent) for 45,628 yards, 333 touchdowns and 165 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 94.4

John Elway in 233 games:

4,123 of 7,250 (56.9 percent) for 51,475 yards, 300 touchdowns and 226 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 79.9

Troy Aikman in 165 games:

2,892 of 4,715 (61.5 percent) for 32,942 yards, 165 touchdowns and 141 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 81.6

Terry Bradshaw in 168 games:

2,025 of 3,901 (51.9 percent) for 27,989 yards, 212 touchdowns and 210 interceptions.

Quarterback Rating: 70.9

 

What we can tell is that Peyton Manning was far more accurate, far more productive in terms of yardage (moving up & down the field), touchdowns (putting points on the board) and also had a much lower interception—ratio per attempt.

Essentially, Manning played and produced at a higher level in every aspect of the game.

Obviously the rules of the game have changed to make it more pass—friendly since the days of Terry Bradshaw (and to a lesser extent, since the days of Elway & Aikman) but even so, there appears to be too large a disparity between the production of the three other quarterbacks in comparison to Manning.

You could make a valid claim that Manning played on a better offensive squad than Elway but I don’t really feel as if the squads that Aikman and Bradshaw played with (considering there were multiple Hall of Famers outside the quarterback position in both instances) were anything to shrug your shoulders at. 

It almost seems as if people don’t really sit back and wonder why a guy like Terry Bradshaw was only selected to three Pro Bowls during his 14—year career.

It wasn’t as if the team and coaching staff he had to work with didn’t provide him with the opportunity to succeed.

Some might say that the Steelers were (and always have been) a running—team and that would explain Bradshaw’s lack of production.

Funny that those fewer passing attempts that resulted from such a game—strategy doesn’t really explain the high—percentage of interceptions which became a specialty of Bradshaw’s as much as throwing touchdowns.

You build teams and strategies around the players you have to work with.

For instance, the Jacksonville Jaguars have been known as a “running—team”.

Would their strategy and game—plan not change greatly if they suddenly had Peyton Manning at quarterback? Or do you think their strategies would remain the same?

Or if the Arizona Cardinals who are known for being a “passing—team” were to suddenly acquire Adrian Peterson?

You can’t honestly expect Peterson to still receive the same amount of carries and opportunities that they gave to Edgerrin James and Tim Hightower.

The Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970’s built their system around the talent they had and the same can be said of the Dallas Cowboys of the 1990’s.

Both teams had running—backs who were more talented than their quarterbacks and as a result, their offensive strategies were structured accordingly.

That is not to say that Terry Bradshaw or Troy Aikman weren’t good quarterbacks, they simply executed their roles to the best of their abilities.

So at the end of the day, what do we have?

Another NFL Network list that was constructed with the aid of little research and the lack of a logical criteria.

Does that upset me?

No, because I (as well as most B/R writers) have the ability to think for myself and do the research necessary to reach a logical conclusion.

But what about the millions of viewers who trust the analysts to be the “experts” they claim to be?

They see individual players who were parts of successful teams and figure “Okay, NFL Network and their experts wouldn’t rank these people in these places without good reason to do so”.

So what we have is masses of people who formulate their own conclusions after hearing what the so—called experts have to say about it.

I’ll provide every reader with the same courtesy that NFL Network has provided to all of us and allow everyone to formulate their own conclusions.

I know personally that I’d love to hear exactly what those conclusions might be.

Exclusive B/R Interview with Indianapolis Colts Receiver Pierre Garcon

After completing my first interview with an Indianapolis Colts player when I interviewed Roy Hall last May, I reached out to contact other players to bring more exclusive content to the Colts Community here on Bleacher Report and beyond.

I was fortunate enough to get in contact with Colts wide receiver Pierre Garcon, who was kind enough to do an interview with me.

What I gathered after speaking with Pierre is, first and foremost, that he was a very approachable guy with a fantastic attitude.

You see that kind of character on television, but after having spoken with both Roy Hall and Pierre Garcon personally, it quickly become apparent that the quality of great character within the Colts’ locker room extends far beyond Peyton Manning.

The Colts players whom I have spoken to seem to reflect that very positive image, which makes the process of interviewing players like that all the more enjoyable.

The following is my first exclusive interview with Pierre Garcon. I hope everyone enjoys.

Note to the editor: Please do not edit any of the content within the interview. Since the responses are transcibed dialog of what both Pierre Garcon and I have said, it is important that none of the dialog is taken out of context. Thank you.

 

In the Colts Community, you’ve actually gathered a bit of a reputation for being one of the most approachable guys and one of the most willing to remain active with the fans. What is it that motivates you to give back to the fans so much and be willing to reach out to them, much like you’re doing in this interview?

I enjoy the fans and the support. I was a fan at one point, and I know how they see us, how we inspire them, and how they inspire us. I know both sides of the fence. I enjoy doing it. They support me and I support them. They motivate me .

How does it feel to be a player in the National Football League?

It feels good, it feels great, it’s a dream come true. I always wanted to do it, and it’s a great feeling. It feels very good.

As a receiver, can you tell us what it has been like to work with Peyton Manning and how you feel about him as a teammate?

Peyton is a great teammate.

One of the greatest teammates you could have. He’s very professional. He’s what an NFL player wants to be. It’s an honor to have him as our teammate. As a receiver, you always want a great quarterback. Without a great quarterback or even a good quarterback, you can’t do much. It’s really a great honor to have him on the team.

Getting to have Reggie Wayne and Marvin for one year and Gonzo, I’ve learned a lot from those guys and they helped me a lot.

Speaking of those guys, having been able to work with guys like Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, what have you been able to pick up learning from those guys, and what kind of impact do you feel they have had on your career thus far?

They’ve helped me out a lot, by watching them and getting to talk to them. They’ve helped me out a lot.

They have really shown me how to become a better receiver, and they have shown me the ins and outs of how to watch tape and how to become a better player.

Dallas Clark has helped me out a lot, also. He’s a very nice guy and very willing to teach. All of them are like that. All of them are pros who have been doing it for a while, and they know what it takes.

We’ve already seen you work in the special teams game. Do you have a preference between being a return specialist and being a wide receiver?

It doesn’t matter. Wherever the team needs me, I’ll be there, even if they need me to hold the field goals.

[laughter]

Playing a receiver means you get more options, and being a return guy is pretty good, so I don’t have a favorite. You just want to be out there as much as you can. 

If there was one thing you wanted people to know about Pierre Garcon the football player, what would it be?

One thing I want them to know about me?

Yes.

I’m a hard worker who will do what I can to help the team win.

What are your goals and expectations for this season?

For this season?

Yes.

To make it to the playoffs, hopefully have home-field advantage and win a Super Bowl. I think that would be perfect.

Definitely and with as good as the team is looking so far, I wouldn’t say that’s too much of a long shot.

No, not at all.

If you could deliver one final message to the Colts fans, anything you want to say about yourself, the season, the team, what would it be?

It’s going to be a great season coming up.

Thank you very much Pierre. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this interview.

No problem man, no problem at all.

And I wish you the absolute best this season.

Alright, thanks man, I appreciate it.

Good luck Pierre, thanks again.

Thank you.

 

And so brought a close to my interview with Pierre Garcon.

It was a very enjoyable experience for me as a writer as well as a fan, and I would like to personally thank Pierre for having taken some of his own personal time to make sure the interview happened.

As always, it was a pleasure to work with anyone within the Indianapolis Colts’ organization, and if what their players have been telling me so far is any indication of the season that is to come, I expect that Colts fans will have a lot to be excited about this year.

 

Clinton Portis is Apparently too “One Dimensional” for Marshall Faulk

As I’m watching NFL Network, I tune in to see who Marshall Faulk considers to be the top-five running backs in the National Football League. While I didn’t exactly agree with his list, I’ve certainly seen worse.

I’m not saying that Clinton Portis is a top-five running back but when Sam Wyche asked Marshall Faulk why Portis didn’t make the list, I found his response to be most disturbing.

Marshall simply said that Portis was too “one dimensional” and would like to see him do more in the receiving game. Faulk then went on to say that even Adrian Peterson (the running back he ranked at No. 1) has done some work in the screen-game.

Now while I’ve never thought of Clinton Portis as being one of the greatest receiving running backs, I was curious to see if Marshall Faulk’s statement had an validity.

I looked up the receiving statistics of Adrian Peterson (the player whom Faulk claims has done good work in this area) and Clinton Portis (the back who Faulk felt is too one-dimensional and need to improve his work in the receiving game.

 

Adrian Peterson: 21 receptions for 125 yards (6.0 YPC) and zero touchdowns.

Clinton Portis: 28 receptions for 218 yards (7.8 YPC) and zero touchdowns.

 

While neither back produced to an exceptional degree in the receiving game, one does clearly stand out has having been more proficient in this one area that Faulk had questionable feelings about.

Portis clearly caught more passes, gained more yards and averaged more yards per-reception than the running back that Faulk went out of his way to praise. I’m not even going to touch on the fact that he caught 47 passes in 2007.

I personally do not feel that Clinton Portis is a better overall running back than Adrian Peterson, but if nothing else, he doesn’t appear to be performing below Adrian Peterson’s level of receiving production.

This might not seem like a big deal to most people but it is.

NFL Network is the official television network of the National Football League. When they hire analysts to provide people with an intelligent perspective, they need to make sure that these analysts know what they’re talking about.

Marshall Faulk was a great player and is no idiot by any means. This looks to me more like a situation where Faulk formed an opinion about Portis without watching much film or doing much research.

That would be a fine statement to make by the water-cooler, but not on NFL Network where your professional opinion is reflective of your overall comprehension of the game.

In this instance, Marshall Faulk appears to simply be dead wrong when comparing the receiving contributions of one player to another.

He decided to praise the more popular player while knocking the less popular player. The issue is, the less popular player has done more than the one whom he praised in the specific area of discussion.

I imagine that these analysts prepare for when the camera’s start to roll.

For Marshall Faulk to have made such a claim without providing any degree of evidence to substantiate it and to later learn that it was Portis who has done more than Peterson is troubling to say the least.

NFL Network should be about the “expert analysis” they advertise, not the generic opinions of retired players who don’t appear to take the time to research things before they formulate their own so-called professional perspectives.

What Will the 2009 Season Hold for Colts’ Quarterback Peyton Manning?

With the 2009 NFL season quickly approaching, it’s understandable that Colts fans would begin to wonder what the 2009 season holds for their beloved Indianapolis Colts. It’s also logical to assume that one would wonder what the 2009 season will hold for Peyton Manning.

Many might be inclined to believe that the answer to the two above mentioned questions would (or should) be the same according the overall result.

But it wouldn’t be.

In an age when many people tend to blend individual success with team accomplishment, it’s often easy to lose sight of how well an individual player might perform.

Football is a team game, we all know that.

We also all know that no one gets there by themselves, so before cries of unwarranted homerism begin to bombard this article, first understand that the recognition and appreciation for Peyton’s (or any other player’s) individual work is never meant as any knock towards how the Colts (or a specific team) have performed as a whole.

I believe that six consecutive seasons with 12 or more victories speaks for itself.

Regardless of what many people like to say about the Colts’ postseason success, no team (successful or not in the postseason) has ever done what the Colts have done for the better part of this decade.

And believe me, don’t think that each and every team isn’t trying to do as well as the Colts have, regardless of the date on the calender.

But back to the original question I posed—What is in store for Peyton Manning in the 2009 season?

Last year, we saw Peyton Manning capture his third league MVP award, and while many people might try to knock his accomplishment as meaningless, they fail to understand the circumstances surrounding the award.

It’s ironic—while many people try to say that “numbers don’t tell the whole story” in an effort to knock Peyton’s superior production over the years, the same people are the first to point to his “numbers” in a means to discredit his MVP award-winning season in 2009.

Of course, people will be quick to point out the statistics that are only a drop in production by the Manning-standard, but how often do you hear about Manning setting the NFL record for completion percentage in a single month?

Manning’s completion percentage in the month of December of 2008 was higher than any quarterback’s completion percentage in any month in NFL history.

So as we look forward to 2009, what can we expect from Peyton Manning?

The reality of the situation is that if Peyton produced on the field at the Hall of Fame level that he has for the majority of his career but the Colts fail to win a championship, it is very likely that his individual contributions will be knocked for not having translated into team success, the level of his own individual performance.

Let’s say for instance that Peyton’s numbers look as follows…

 

355 of 562 (63.1 percent) for 4,250 yards, 30 touchdowns and 12 interceptions.

95.1 quarterback rating.

 

…But the Colts go 11-5 with a 15th ranked defense and lose in the first round of the playoffs.

Most people would criticize Manning for his failure to get the job done when it matters the most.

Especially if the defense were to play an average game in the Wild Card round—the blame would rest on Manning’s shoulders for not being able to replicate his prior performance, even if the game he played wasn’t bad by any other quarterback’s standards.

How often do you hear people saying that the Colts would have never won 11 games had Manning not played at that level? Or perhaps, they would have went 8-8 had Manning thrown for only 3,200 yards and 23 touchdowns?

Again, if history is to repeat itself, Manning will take the blame for failing to produce in a game that the team would have never reached had he not performed as well as he did over the course of an entire season.

This season, I do feel that the Colts have a chance to play as well as any other team in the league.

If they can play well-rounded enough (offense, defense, and special teams), I think that they can advance in the playoffs even without Peyton producing at his typical level.

As we all know, the teams that win championships are either the most well-rounded, or they get hot at the right time of the year.

Will that be the case for the Colts this coming season?

Can a Great Offense Win Championships Without a High-Caliber Defense?

You often hear people say defense wins championships, but you never hear anyone say that offense wins championships.

So why is that?

Is the old cliche true about the necessity to play quality defense, or is it a myth that many people have come to adopt simply to glorify the sometimes less-exciting side of the ball?

In an effort to get a better understanding on this subject, I looked back to history.

Sometimes, teams have Cinderella seasons but for the most part, you would imagine that history should provide an accurate gauge for us to determine whether NFL teams truly need a championship-caliber defense to become champions.

Has any sort of pattern been established?

Has every team been different and found their own ways to win, regardless of exceptional performance on either one side of the ball?

These are the questions that I hope to answer.

What I did was research the 43 Super Bowl-winning teams.

I recorded where each team ranked in the league in each of their Super Bowl-winning seasons in terms of points-per-game scored and points-per-game allowed.

Instead of ranking these teams based on the actual amount of points they scored and gave up, I tracked where they ranked among the league in their championship seasons.

The reason being that since the rules of the game have changed so much, scoring 25 points-per-game in 1978 would have been much more impressive than scoring 25 points-per-game in 2008.

The same could be said in the sense that holding your opponent to 13 points per game in 2008 would be much more impressive than holding your opponent to 13 points per game in 1978.

Point totals vary from season to season, while the overall rankings provide a more accurate indication of where these teams ranked among the rest of the league in each of their respective championship seasons.

Now before I unveil the rankings, how many people think that there have been a number of a teams to win Super Bowls without quality defensive squads?

How many teams do you think may have won Super Bowls without quality offensive units?

For the purpose of this discussion, I’m going to say that ranking in the top-ten on either side of the ball is a pretty solid indication that the specific unit played at a quality level.

Other readers may have a different criteria.

But without any further ado, here are both the offensive and defensive rankings of all 43 Super Bowl winning teams…1966 Green Bay Packers

• Fourth on offense
• First on defense

1967 Green Bay Packers

• Ninth on offense
• Third on defense

1968 New York Jets

• Second on offense
• Fourth on defense

1969 Kansas City Chiefs

• Second on offense
• First on defense

1970 Baltimore Colts

• Sixth on offense
• Seventh on defense

1971 Dallas Cowboys

• First on offense
• Seventh on defense

1972 Miami Dolphins

• First on offense
• First on defense

1973 Miami Dolphins

• Fifth on offense
• First on defense

1974 Pittsburgh Steelers

• Sixth on offense
• Second on defense

1975 Pittsburgh Steelers

• Fifth on offense
• Second on defense

1976 Oakland Raiders

• Fourth on offense
• 12th on defense

1977 Dallas Cowboys

• Second on offense
• Eighth on defense

1978 Pittsburgh Steelers

• Fifth on offense
• First on defense

1979 Pittsburgh Steelers

• First on offense
• Fifth on defense

1980 Oakland Raiders

• Seventh on offense
• Tenth on defense

1981 San Francisco 49ers

• Seventh on offense
• Second on defense

1982 Washington Redskins

• 12th on offense
• First on defense

1983 Oakland Raiders

• Third on offense
• 13th on defense

1984 San Francisco 49ers

• Second on offense
• First on defense

1985 Chicago Bears

• Second on offense
• First on defense

1986 New York Giants

• Eighth on offense
• Second on defense

1987 Washington Redskins

• Fourth on offense
• Sixth on defense

1988 San Francisco 49ers

• Seventh on offense
• Eighth on defense

1989 San Francisco 49ers

• First on offense
• Third on defense

1990 New York Giants

• 15th on offense
• First on defense

1991 Washington Redskins

• First on offense
• Second on defense

1992 Dallas Cowboys

• Second on offense
• Fifth on defense

1993 Dallas Cowboys

• Second on offense
• Second on defense

1994 San Francisco 49ers

• First on offense
• Sixth on defense

1995 Dallas Cowboys

• Third on offense
• Third on defense

1996 Green Bay Packers

• First on offense
• First on defense

1997 Denver Broncos

• First on offense
• Sixth on defense

1998 Denver Broncos

• Second on offense
• Eighth on defense

1999 St. Louis Rams

• First on offense
• Fourth on defense

2000 Baltimore Ravens

• 14th on offense
• First on defense

2001 New England Patriots

• Sixth on offense
• Sixth on defense

2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

• 18th on offense
• First on defense

2003 New England Patriots

• 12th on offense
• First on defense

2004 New England Patriots

• Fourth on offense
• Second on defense

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers

• Ninth on offense
• Third on defense

2006 Indianapolis Colts

• Second on offense
• 23rd on defense

2007 New York Giants

• 14th on offense
• 17th on defense

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers

• 20th on offense
• First on defense

So what does all of this tell us?

Allow me to lay it out, so we can get a quicker glance at the big picture.

 

The Np. 1 offense ended up winning nine of the 43 Super Bowls (20.9 percent).

The No. 1 defense ended up winning 14 of the 43 Super Bowls (32.5 percent).

Top-five offenses won 27 out of the 43 Super Bowls (62.8 percent).

Top-five defenses won 29 out of the 43 Super Bowls (67.4 percent).

Top-ten offenses won 36 out of the 43 Super Bowls (83.7 percent).

Top-ten defense won 39 out of the 43 Super Bowls (90.6 percent).

The average Super Bowl winning offense ranked 6.4th overall.

The average Super Bowl winning defense ranked 4.5th overall.

 

The numbers seem to indicate a slight advantage going to the defensive side of the ball.

Still, they also appear to indicate that a Super Bowl-winning teams must be of a high caliber on both sides of the ball with few exceptions (The 2006 Colts defense & The 2008 Steelers offense come to mind).

Now, you might be wondering why this article seems to focus more on the value of defenses winning championships than offense winning championships.

Truth be told, both units appear to be quite equal in terms of value needed to win the Super Bowl.

The reason why I’m taking a closer look on the value of defense is due to how society has treated both units.

You rarely hear a great defensive squad criticized for their lack of winning championships when they get stuck with poor to mediocre offensive units.

Conversely, you often hear players on the offensive side of the ball (especially quarterbacks) criticized for not winning championships even though they end up playing with poor to mediocre defensive units.

Let’s face it, both sides need the other to succeed but one side takes more heat for the lack of doing so.

Realistically speaking, your not going to win a Super Bowl without having a defense ranked in the top-ten.

It’s only happened four times in 43 years, so I wouldn’t bank on any miracles happening if I were the quarterback of a team who possesses a struggling defense.

Yet, you often hear quarterbacks criticized for their lack of winning championships, regardless of the defensive units they played with.

I could understand that criticism if they had the benefit of playing with top defensive units for the greater part of their careers but if those seasons come few and far between, the window of opportunity they have is significantly less than that of other quarterbacks.

The best example that I can think of is Peyton Manning.

Since his team has won more games in a single decade than any other team led by any one quarterback in NFL history, people have expected to see more of the same in the post-season.

The reality of the matter is that Manning has only played with top-ten defensive units in four times in his 11-year career.

The Colts managed to win many games they logically shouldn’t have due to exceptional production from the Colts offense. This (in my view) led to unrealistic expectations in the post-season.

All people could think of is that they won during the regular season so they should be able to win in the post-season just as easily.

The problem is, one dimensional teams get shut down in the playoffs.

Defenses single out their greatest strength (in this case, the passing offense) and force the rest of the team to beat them. Meanwhile they rack up points and force the quarterback to play from behind.

It’s a losing combination.

No matter how good Peyton Manning and the Colts offense was, they really didn’t have much of a realistic chance at winning championships during seven of Manning’s 11 seasons.

History shows us that no matter how good the offense is, it won’t travel far without a quality defense to balance the attack.

That goes for Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, or any other quarterback stuck in these kinds of situations who takes the heat for it anyway.

The issue is, people expect these individuals to carry the teams anyway when that expectation isn’t very logical.

That is, if history has anything to say about the matter.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010